MARC LEPINE: CRIMINAL OR FOLK HERO?
Most folk heroes started out as criminals, so they say. In 1989, it was clear to most people what Marc Lepine was: a criminal and a mass murderer. Twenty years later, it has changed: it is far from clear now. The simple fact that his name has not been forgotten and that his visibility, dare we say popularity, has increased, says a lot not only about the man but about the general public and its perceptions.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Mark Steyn: the power of confusion

Although he is generally very logical in his arguments and his comments on geopolitics (the West vs the East and especially the Muslim threat everywhere) Mark Steyn loses his cool and his marbles when it comes to feminism and women's issues. Add to this a few names like Quebec, multiculturalism and Marc Lepine and he loses it completely, getting into a rant and shooting at everything that moves. We can almost talk of a transe here, with obvious symptoms like foam at the corner of his mouth, heavy perspiration and trembling. Especially the trembling is alarming, with the shouting of course and the eyes: the terrible eyes.

We are making fun of course, but the established fact is that he loses his cool in front of feminism (and please don't mention Lepine in his presence, he'll go berserk). He doesn't like feminists, this is evident, but he really doesn't know what to make of them. He cannot declare war on them, then women constitute a big chunk of his fans, so his attitude is bound to be ambivalent: all the time. Therefore, what he says about women and feminism is not logical, it can't be, considering those premises, so he is condemned to confusion. And it is this confusion that we would like to explore here.

1- He said that women and feminists should get more involved in the war on terror then the real threat to their freedom comes from over there. But feminists don't listen to him and prefer to attack their husbands fighting oversees and complain about life in the West. If they do that, there should be something wrong with the Western civilisation, which Steyn don't address. He doesn't address this contradiction because he has difficulty understanding what is really happening, which is another way to say that he doesn't understand women at all.

2- He reminds us that if 60 per cent of college graduates are now women, there should be plenty of other patriarchal dragons left for feminists to slay, then women make up only 1.3 per cent of plumbers, pipe fitters and steamfitters. It seems that feminism hasn't won every battle in every sphere of modern Western life, there are still the plumbers to liberate.

3- He says that every December 6, ''our own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the Montreal massacre -- the 14 women murdered by Marc Lepine''. Does he say that Canadian men are not real men because they failed to stop it, or does he accuse feminism of trying to put the blame on all Canadian men? Confusion.

4- He says that the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not Marc Lepine but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate -- an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. So he thinks men should have put their lives on the line to save their enemies! Where is the logic? Unless Mark Steyn himself is a feminist, which we know he is not. There again: more confusion.

5- ''The "men" stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.'' What does he imply? That men should have defended and saved those feminists? That men should have stopped Gharbi because he is a Muslim? Perhaps because he was the shooter and the murderer? Again and again: more and more confusion.

6- Steyn doubts that if women had been in power ''the World Trade Center would still be standing". He may be right in this instance: "...feminism ... that embodies inclusivity, multiculturalism and the ability to change the world through the humanity that women do bring... would indeed look like ... a classroom at the École Polytechnique after the men had departed...'' He pleads that large parts of the world are already, in political terms, as thoroughly feminized as they can get, and there is still no peace.

7- But he is wrong when he says that "Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus". The Americans are so much from Venus that they are the ones who implanted feminism in the 1960s. And he is dead wrong to believe that Canada had an hormone treatment and is more from Venus now than the US. At least ''we did stand up to shoot the bitches'' which no American had the courage to do, and which Steyn only does in his wet dreams.

8- But we must give credit to this guy, who sometimes tells the truth when he says: ''unfortunately, those societies that most enthusiastically aligned themselves with feminist priorities are also the ones that are doomed.'' So, clearly there is a choice to be made: which is the enemy you want to defeat? The East (Islam and Asia) or feminism? Every honest American knows that you cannot defeat both enemies at the same time. It might even not be desirable, then a victory over Islam could very well bring about a worldwide victory of feminism. Have you ever thought that the surest way to defeat feminism might be to let the Moslems win? If a defeat in Afghanistan means a victory over feminism on the home front, who of the boys could really say NO to that? Steyn however never discusses that, then it would confuse the issue. As if things were not confused enough already?

9- Next Steyn talks of fall in the birth rate, saying that ''if abortion is feminism's "holy grail," there are more than a few countries that must wish they'd never stumbled upon it in the 1970s''. He reminds us that many countries are at risk because of this: Russia and Canada, where abortions outnumber live births. A death spiral unprecedented in advanced societies, and not created by war this time.

10- He suggests that a new notion of "women's issues" should be introduced and asks: ''... isn't the war on terror the real "women's issue" these days?''. But he doesn't get it as we said earlier: American women are not interested and the men here will never go for it. Real men are pissed off and want revenge, even if they have to let Islam win to get it. After all: "God said in the holy Koran that men are better than women. Why can't we settle for that?" However, he is correct in noting that Western feminists sing the ancient songs of long-won revolutions as relentlessly as drunks on St Patrick's Day: "Have fewer children, later in life" That's the strategy that will demographically deliver North America and western Europe into the hands of Islam.

Now at least, Steyn is beginning to make some sense, let us all pray the true God, the merciful... that he still continues to bestow his blessings upon our friend Mark who sometimes tells the truth in spite of all this ambient confusion. Peace brothers.

3 comments:

I am a Vietnam Combat veteran. One of the consequences of the same is that I have a profound respect for the rule of law and individual justice. Without the same, as per my combat experience, individuals and social groups may break down into armed conflict.Consequently, I abhor and condemn the actions of Marc Lepine.At the same time, I abhor and condemn the lack of individual justice and respect for the rule of law which feminism promulgates.The same has resulted in men in the USA and,perhaps, Canada, too, having the status of helots, semi-slaves, with fewer rights and more responsibilities, by law, than women.Without a doubt, nations that have embraced feminism are breaking down socially, culturally, politically, and legally as a result of the aforementioned.As a returning Vietnam veteran, I saw returning Vietnam veterans destroyed by American women, especially feminists. I am VERY bitter about the same.My advice to American men is to avoid all social, culturaly personal, business, and professional contact with American women.By doing the same, you will avoid being "surrounded and disarmed", destroyed, by the same. The same will, also, result in you being much more successful in your professional life for the same reason. This strategy has effective defensive and offensive characteristics. Offensively speaking, there are individuals and entities who, when they observe that women are not protected by men with character (the very type of men that feminists hate and persecute), they will attack and prey on the same in a variety of way. It is safe to assume that Lepine knew that the men surrounding these feminists were men of weak character such that, as per the aformentioned, he saw that he had an opportuity to attack the same with relative impunity.

A very sound answer by Marcus Aurelius which illustrates the basic dilemma of modern heroes returning home. Maybe Herman Wuk was right that WWII was the last ''decent war'', if such a term is ever applicable to any war, where a clean cut victory, no doubt about the fact that it was a just war, and no doubt either who the bad guys were, etc.. Yours was a return similar to the one of the French soldiers returning home from Indochina and Algeria in 1954 and 1962: a hostile population, no gratitude and no support. So it was also for some Vietnam vets. Men are used to feel to be the sacrificed one throughout history, and a legitimate question of the soldier in the trenches enduring constant shelling is : what are we defending? This is a legitimate question to ask oneself for most Western generations of soldiers fighting on every battlefields since the 1950s.

The answer however is not to listen to Jane Fonda and surrender to the enemy, but there is a middleground where everyone can find a way to stay loyal but ''be nobody's fool either''. Returning home, he knows that he has now to take care of the ''enemy from within'' the one that breathes and moves on the homeland.

The dilemmea for most combat veterans, especially officers who have a profound respect for the rule of law and individual justice, is that they know that rebellion, insurrection of social groups etc... may break down into nasty armed conflicts, therefore they disapprove of it. At the same time, they hate the lack of individual justice and the indignities to which their fellow veterans are subjected, especially the injustice which feminism promulgates. Will they take part in a rebellion, or will they accept things, blend in, and suffer those humiliations which are the price of survival? This is the veterans' problematic: the choice between two bad options.

You describe things quite clearly: ''Men in the USA and Canada having the status of helots, semi-slaves, with fewer rights and more responsibilities, by law, than women. ... nations that have embraced feminism are breaking down socially, culturally, politically, and legally as a result of the aforementioned. As a returning Vietnam veteran, I saw returning Vietnam veterans destroyed by American women, especially feminists. ''

But your advice in my opinion is not good enough

''My advice to American men is to avoid all social, culturaly personal, business, and professional contact with American women.''

Everywhere in the world, unjustly treated veterans had to decide upon their return if they would take part in a revolution or try to highjack an unjust government by a ''coup d'état''. Since 1953 at least, this item has been on the agenda of every returning army, and not only in the Western world.

As for Lepine, if he sensed that the men opposing him were manginas who could never stop him, or if some of them secretly approved of his action is not especially relevant since he probably didn't care. Whether he did it to prove something to himself, or to listen to that little voice inside him and die with a clear conscience... By the standards of the outside world he may have committed atrocities, but the question is rather if he acted according to his personal code of conduct and achieved something, if he was true to himself and perhaps not died happy (he couldn't then he sensed the negative judgment of the world and his condemnation by society), but at least somewhat vindicated.

THEY MAY DISAPPROVE OF THIS PAGE...

SPEAKING OF VIOLENCE...

WHICH ONE ARE YOU?

Yes, which one are you? For the most part, five groups of people are interested in the Marc Lepine phenomenon: feminists, real women, bleeding heart liberals, criminalists and masculists. All are welcome here to join and post. So which one do you belong to? Maybe the above does not describe you accurately though, and you would like perhaps to add a new category to the pool. Feel free to do so, even if you should be the only one in it. It says nowhere that one cannot be his/her own planet!